The Instigator
DayveyonMcGeePhs
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
saboosa
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Should violent games be banned?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
DayveyonMcGeePhs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,067 times Debate No: 45841
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

DayveyonMcGeePhs

Con

Do you like video games? Do you enjoy violent games? well you should know that there is a debate about violent games being banned. which means this will target the media and specially for teenagers/young adults. Should violent games be banned?
I realize that violent video games doesn't any educational values. Some might say its harmful to children. I realize that their are young children who also play violent video games such as GTA(Grand Theft Auto), COD(Call of Duty),etc. There was an Incident where a teen(Jaban Wright a 17 year old) stabbed his younger brother(Gary Wright a 16 year old) over a game app called "Flappy Bird". Would you say it was because of violent games?
On the other hand, violent games are not influencing kids and teenagers to become violent. Instead of trying to ban violent games talk to the parents who buy those violent games. Every game that is violent, except for cartoon violence are labeled for "E" for everyone through "M" for mature, which is 17 and older. "M" for mature has at least one of the following Adult content, adult language, gun violence, violence, alcohol usage, blood and or gore. Gamestop has a policy if your not 17 or older you must have a parent/guardian to buy the "M" for mature game for the underage child.
Furthermore, banning violent games goes against citizens across the country civil rights. Banning violent games goes is taking the citizens freedom away for playing those violent games. Children across the country play time is steadily decreasing due to school/educational purposes,chores,etc. Studies show that this would leave to the children having ADHD. Playing video games keeps the primitive parts of the brain active. Finally, Parents and guardians can not keep their children from violence because its everywhere you go.
In conclusion, you would not be able to ban violent games just because it is protected by the first amendment.
saboosa

Pro

I accept your challenge save your info for next round
Debate Round No. 1
DayveyonMcGeePhs

Con

Let's see what you got.
saboosa

Pro

Ok first of all, some video games we play can have a effect on our lives. Many peoples life's were taken by suicides and violent actions like murder. Second of all, for young kids to see it may have a effect on their lives as we'll. they might have nightmares and think bad thoughts just because they see a violent game. Third of all with 90 percent of kids and teens playing video games, they increase a risk of bad language or disrespect especially if they are playing on a talk with other people game. And fourth of all, I am not saying they should be banned completely all I am saying is that there should be a certain age where people can play violent games. That age should be 20 when the full body and mind is mature enough to handle it
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DayveyonMcGeePhs 3 years ago
DayveyonMcGeePhs
bitch are you mad, because i won this debate about vidoe games..... HATER
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
DayveyonMcGeePhssaboosaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro waited, which wasn't a rule listed off.. She had the responsibility of putting forth her arguments right away. What she did prevented Con from being able to refute her cases, when he should have been able to.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 3 years ago
GaryBacon
DayveyonMcGeePhssaboosaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: In such a short debate, it is hard to say which had more convincing arguments. Con argued about the infringement such a ban would have on civil liberties, while Pro argued that such games can negatively influence younger minds. In the end, I left the arguments section tied. However, Pro gets the point for better spelling and grammar.